Re: no no derivatives, was legal consultation (was List moderator action)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, All,
At 07:11 PM 07-05-2026, John C Klensin wrote:
>Let me split a hair or two:  There are strong arguments (already made
>in notes you may not have read yet) for allowing "no derivatives" for
>an initial I-D for the "bring into some sort of discussion with an AD
>about sponsorship or into a DISPATCH process to see if the IETF is
>interested".  That set of arguments would almost certainly apply to
>published RFCs, especially in the IETF Stream.  I'd hate to make a
>rule that would then tangle us up in special cases, but, in general,
>that reason for allowing "no derivatives" probably would not only
>apply to drafts a WG has agreed to examine, ones dispatched to a WG,
>or ones that an AD had agreed to sponsor.  Except in very odd cases
>that I have trouble imagining, I wouldn't expect to see such a
>disclaimer on the second (i.e., -01) version of an I-D.  A rule that
>we didn't want to allow a "no derivatives" clause in a published RFC
>would have zero impact on such an "is the IETF interested" I-Ds.

I'll say yes to the last sentence about "a rule".

I read RFC 5378.  There is the following sentence in Section 1:

   "In order for Contributions to be used within the IETF Standards
    Process, including when they are published as Internet-Drafts or
    RFCs, certain limited rights must be granted to the IETF Trust, which
    then grants the necessary rights to the IETF."

My reading of that is:

   (a) A person submits a Contribution.

   (b) The person agrees to grant some rights to the IETF Trust.

   (c) The IETF Trust grants some rights to another person.

   (d) That person uses the Contribution within the IETF Standards Process

One of the advantages of the approach is that the person (d) does not 
have to seek permission of person (a) before using the Contribution. 
Both the persons in (a) and (d) will have to state that they properly 
acknowledged all Contributors.

I used some text from an RFC in this mail.  I included the RFC 
number.  I did not mention the names of the editors of that RFC.  I 
might argue that using the extract falls under "fair use" [1].  I am 
not sure whether that concept exists under the laws which I have to 
follow.  I assume that the editors of the RFC would understand that:

   (i)   I was not trying to take credit for their work.

   (ii)  I was not trying to misrepresent the thoughts which they
         expressed in words.

   (iii) I won't gain an economic benefit out of all this email exchange.

I did not seek your permission to quote part of your email.  You 
probably won't seek my permission if you were to reply to this 
email.  I could include a footer in this email to inform you that the 
email comes with a "no derivatives" condition.  I would also have to 
inform the IETF Trust about that condition (please see (c)).  The 
IETF Trust would probably have to inform the IESG if that the matter 
is related to the IETF Standards Process.  I went through the IETF 
Trust minutes up to last April (if I remember correctly).  I did not 
find any agenda item related to a "no derivatives" condition with 
respect to the IETF Standards Process.

I doubt that including a footer to this email would bring much value 
to it as the email exchange is not about a technical problem or a 
technical solution.  It's improbable that a disclosure under the RFC 
8179 rules would be needed.  I doubt that you would misrepresent what 
I wrote on purpose (re. (ii)).  I skipped the first and third 
assumptions (i) and (iii) for the example in the previous 
paragraph.  A footer would be unnecessary, in my opinion.

As a somewhat unrelated comment, I mentioned that anyone who would 
like to see a draft published or not published as a (IETF) RFC can 
send an email {2].  After writing the above, it looks like it is not 
as simple as "send an email".  There are 171 pages of (IETF) RFCs 
which a new participant would have to read to understand "standards 
process" rules.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fair-use
2. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/TJitRden6eTbJnUAz8KMql1ILGU/